September 8, 2011

That's the line in the President's speech (PDF) that made me cry out loud. Here's the whole sequence, in which he purports to define who we are:

In fact, this larger notion that the only thing we can do to restore prosperity is just dismantle government, refund everyone’s money, let everyone write their own rules, and tell everyone they’re on their own – that’s not who we are. That’s not the story of America.

Yes, we are rugged individualists. Yes, we are strong and self-reliant. And it has been the drive and initiative of our workers and entrepreneurs that has made this economy the engine and envy of the world.

But there has always been another thread running throughout our history – a belief that we are all connected; and that there are some things we can only do together, as a nation.

What bothered me so much? It was the belief that we are all connected. The idea of the collective. We are one, and the one is the government.

"We must all hang together or we will, uh, go in debt to our eyeballs.

He speaks socialism, nothing more, nothing less.

How can you be for 'rugged individualism' and being for 'strong and self-reliant' and saying 'initiative of our workers and say it's the 'entrepreneurs make us great' yet here he wants everyone to, what, fork over every dime to finance his theory on now to get the economy back up? Wants us to 'sacrifice'.

Funny thing is, he is a millionaire himself but won't turn over HIS money to finance his own ideas. Obama sure won't sacrifice anything himself.

Obama once taught constitutional law. Why can't he explain the constitutional origin of his theory of connectedness & how it gives him access to the wallets of generations yet unborn?Unless it's all bullshit he made up because it sounds good?

Of course we are connected-- just look at how the evens of 9/11 have touched us all and drawn us to defend the country,but it is stretch to claim that means we are a collective-- really- And many of us are connected to the Packers, who scored quickly and just picked up a fumble, but does that mean we cheese heads are a collective?

In fact, this larger notion that the only thing we can do to restore prosperity is just dismantle government, refund everyone’s money, let everyone write their own rules, and tell everyone they’re on their own – that’s not who we are.

He kicked the shit out of that strawman, didn't he? Makes me wonder if he doesn't comment here on occasion.

I have yet to have even one of the many welfare recipients I support come by the house for coffee. Coffee can be purchased with food stamps can't it? I have my own coffee even, but no one ever visits. Will any of them show up at my funeral? If I go broke, will they help me like I helped them?

Hell, nobody even came by to get the money. They just demanded that I send it, or I'd go to jail. Not my idea of a connection with my countrymen. Thanks government.

You are getting there, Althouse. You and Megan McArdle will one day see the light and realize that the leadership of the Democrats believe wholeheartedly that a few bright people can make rules that will create a utopia.

"What bothered me so much? It was the belief that we are all connected."

Where is the Obama who is ready to relegate the cons in the back seat? The Obama who is ready to gun down the knife wielding cons? Where is this Obama that Althouse yearns for? Where is the Divider in Chief, that Althouse seeks?

Sounds like it's time for a new post:

How BHO lost me (Althouse) when he falsely claimed "that there are somethings we can only do together, as a nation."

We are all connected, but not in the way Obama wants or purports we are.

Those three paragraphs are pure bullshit. Nobody, except a few whacko anarchists, want to dismantle government. No sane person is saying refund everyone's money. No one is saying let everyone write their own rules and tell everyone they're on their own.

Pure bullshit, which betrays a lack of seriousness in Obama's speech. We are on our own. This jackwagon (Thank you, R. Lee Ermey) isn't going to help anyone.

The extreme straw men - present in all of the President's speeches - is what annoys me the most.

"this larger notion that the only thing we can do to restore prosperity is just dismantle government, refund everyone’s money, let everyone write their own rules, and tell everyone they’re on their own"

Right, according to conservatives, that's the "ONLY" thing we can do. Nobody is advocating that. Why would he offer that as the alternative to his DOA proposal?

@Maguro, it's called the fallacy of the excluded middle. According to him the only alternative to the status quo is to dismantle government, refund everyone's money and let everyone write their own rules. It can only be either-or in his silly world.

So if this still born bill is not passed, we have to dismantle the government? I wasn't suggesting that Mr. President, but OK. It's is more logical than thinking the path we're on will work. Lets get started.

Look Barry, I'd like to join your club, but you're telling me I got to pay most of the bills and that dude over there carrying my TV out the window gets a check every month from the club? I don't know. Who runs this thing?

"...this larger notion that the only thing we can do to restore prosperity is just dismantle government, refund everyone’s money, let everyone write their own rules, and tell everyone they’re on their own..."

Uh? Give you a trillion to name the person who said that. TOTUS excepted.

I reject the idea that we need to ask people to choose between their jobsand their safety. I reject the argument that says for the economy to grow, wehave to roll back protections that ban hidden fees by credit card companies, orrules that keep our kids from being exposed to mercury, or laws that prevent thehealth insurance industry from shortchanging patients.

For the economy to grow, we have to repeal laws that protect children from mercury? Who in the world has ever made this argument.

Apart from my family and friends, the only connection I have to others is when they hand me money for something I produce and they want.

Wanna spread the wealth around? Offer a product or service that someone with money wants.

I am so desperately tired of this little ... boy ... President, an affirmative action pipsqueak who had it all handed to him at every step of the way, purporting to speak for "Americans."

Calvin Coolidge said, upon his retirement, "We draw our Presidents from the people...I came from them. I wish to be one of them again."

Therein lies Barack Obama's desperate, insoluble problem: he is an arrogant, urban, intellectual idealogue, utterly apart from the vast majority of Americans other than those who share his idealogy, his urban focus, his faculty-lounge mentality, or some aspects of his skin color.

No matter how hard Obama may attempt to twist language, he is more profoundly NOT connected to the American people than any President since Wilson (1913-19).

What bothers me isn't so much the connectedness part as what immediately preceded it: A President who won't stop hectoring us about how playing politics is sordid dismissed his opponents as unamerican. Did you see that? He attempted to define America as it was until Roosevelt launched the entitlement culture as as alien to "us." Makes you wonder who this "us" is, huh?

Funny how that line harmonizes with Biden's comments earlier in the week: The President says that conservative beliefs are alien to America, and his running mate says that those union guys have to resist the barbarians—alients—at the gate.

Amazingly, he has actually inverted reality. He has attempted to define the city wall as protecting everyone else from the barbarians within.

His speech was pathetic. Revolting. No, Dowd's word, "repugnant." Do it RIGHT NOW! RIGHT NOW. RIGHT NOW. Pass it quick or we're all going to die. RIGHT NOW. And one of the most disjointed speeches yet. Did he throw the kitchen sink in there? I think I saw one - was it pink or harvest gold? RIGHT NOW!

This was Obama's kickoff campaign 2012 speech. He's drawn the line. Government is the answer, according to him. But look at how government is failing all around us. It's amazing. He is doubling down on stupid.

===================From many, one. Which makes Obama more correct that Althouse - though I get the "truthiness" of her position. The need for "connectedness", all oars pulling in the same direction - does not apply to every matter - nor does it mean that Government is the natural place to tell every American what matters require connectness and in what direction all the oars must pull towards.

U Pluribus Unam also has a direct Roman symbol..the bundle of sticks bound together..symbol of Roman Justice, Authority, Strength. One stick is easy to break. Together, difficult to impossible. The Fascia. Which of course was abused by those Fascist groups that saw government as coordinating all "connectedness", telling all now made one what to do.

But it is still essential to sometimes establish connectiveness and direction. Not go with corrosive MultiKulti or freedom!!! to the point of disconnected anarchy. Even in America. That is why the Fascia is also an American symbol, used on some government seals and on the back of the US dime.

This speech seems to be all about a bill Obama is going to send to congress. Henry Ford is supposed to have said that no one ever made a reputation out of what he was going to do. Wait and see what comes of this.

G. is working with a client who told him that he was given an 80% raise in pay by the Federal government to come to Alaska as an anti-oil attorney.What??? Just a couple of weeks ago I heard Ken Salazar, Secretary of the Interior, say that Obama supports oil drilling in Alaska.Something doesn't add up... You don't think Obama says one thing and does another... do you?

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

WE No NO. no we, only ME.

UNION. Terrible. No COLLECTIVE UNION

And, what's w/ all of these things that supposedly are to be done by this collective union? Althouse et. al. know that WE THE PEOPLE ARE NOT ONE UNITED ENTITY, AKA COLLECTIVE.

Obama always comes back to the collective. He's a collectivist through and through. Again - no thanks.And it's alwasy this false choice. We can't have a government that works for us and allows us freedom. No. We must have the kind of government the left want: government control/all of the time.

I've got some spare PFDs, for the journey. How many do you need for your family*.

Boat People 2011!!!!

*Clarification: Please don't mistakenly assume that I'll give you some PFDs free of charge. I'm saying that I'll wait until the TPers have bought up all in-stock PFDs (as they prep for the journey), and then I'll sell you my old ones at an absurdly high price, thereby maximizing my profit. Me the Me.

...this larger notion that the only thing we can do to restore prosperity is just dismantle government, refund everyone’s money, let everyone write their own rules, and tell everyone they’re on their own...

"I have yet to have even one of the many welfare recipients I support come by the house for coffee."

That's kind of the point.

The "welfare state" is really meant to subvert all the social pressures that come with "village" living. Things like caring for your neighbors, building mutually-supportive communities; you know, local solutions to local problems.

Then Hillary! had the audacity to actually have ghost-written a book called "It Takes a Village" to further promote policies that actually destroy villages.

So no, bagoh20, you don't know poor people whom might drop by for coffee. Poverty is now a disease. To be treated by professionals. And even though said professionals have in the last 80 years have shown zero ability to treat the disease, they're credentialed so you don't have to worry about it.

Just called a niece to caution to her to be careful this weekend due to terrorist threat [she lives in NYC]. When we spoke, she was sitting in a Starbucks studying her organic chemistry since she is geting ready to go to nursing school after getting a BS in Biology.

She and other young people like her know how to do the right thing to prepare for a hopefully fruitful life. The collective mindset doesn't help people like her. Obama is uninformed as to how people succeed and prosper. He is very stubborn and pretty dopey.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

We? United? Common? Union? JUSTICE???? Insure? Tranquility? General Welfare? Who the hell wrote this fucking crap anyway? Some commie at MSNBC?

I talked to a freind today who is mentoring a kid who is now playing for a major college sports team as a true freshman. I asked what he was going to major in and the friend suggested he should take sociology. I replied "bullshit- in that major, he will only be brainwashed that people can't succeed without govt and the rich are all born with silver spoons in their mouth. I said tell him to saty away from those bullshit majors."

Just for the record, the history through which the thread runs does include the 99% of our history in which we did not run any car companies together, as a nation. So the inference that anyone who does not want us to go on running car companies together, as a nation, is ipso facto trying to break that thread is a bit on the weak side.

The only way we're connected in this country any more is we're all under the power of the government.

There is no "American people" anymore. The liberal project to destroy the traditional American identity in favor of multiculturalism and "diversity" has left us a bunch of competing peoples struggling for control.

We were starting to approach being a people in the early 60s when immigration had been shut off for 40 years. Then Ted Kennedy and his kind threw the door open to the Third World and the path to national dissolution was set.

I'm not part of Obama's people. He's not part of mine. He's just a smooth talking empty suit who gullible, starry-eyed white liberals got into office so they could congratulate themselves on how unracist they are. His appeals to "connectedness" are a bad joke.

The founding fathers deliberately created a Union of states. That Union of states, in many ways, deliberately prevented the voters from acting collectively on a national level.

You've dramatically misinterpreted that quote. Because you do not understand the structure of a republican government. The preservation of the power of the individual states was of overriding importance to the founding fathers.

South Korea (But while they’re adding teachers in places like South Korea, we’re laying them off in droves)

China's high speed rail is a fiasco.

Our skies are the most congested in the world because we're so damn rich.

The average class size in South Korea is 36.

* * *

I actually think Congress should pass the whole thing. It's peanuts in comparison to our real problems and it would be interesting to see how Obama spins when targeted tax cuts and shovel ready projects continue to fail. And it does contain some good ideas.

He really doesn't understand. The sooner we return him to community organizing, the better for all concerned. Of course, Michelle will never accept that. He will spend the rest of his life raising money to pay for her vacations.

It was Althouse (and many of her commenters) who went nuts reading stuff into BHO's words that weren't there.

It seems that for many of you this nuttiness is only objectionable when I'm applying it to non-BHO text.

If you folks were not being total hacks, not a single one of you would object to: " we are all connected; and that there are some things we can only do together, as a nation." But many of you can't rise above your hackery. It's impossible anytime BHO is involved.

Why A-tards did Madison & Hamilton create the Electoral College--ie the Senate-- AND the Supreme court,instead of just allowing pure majority rule, which would have been far more advantageous to States rights factions in the early days? Wait--don't worry yr ugly little heads about it--jus make things worse

Henry - I agree Repubs should pass it. In the grand scheme of our insolvency, it's a mere bag of shells and they can view it as a goodbye gift for Prez Obama. Plus, what would he say in his next speech if they pass it? He would not be able to blame Congress.

Why A-tards did Madison & Hamilton create the Electoral College--ie the Senate-- AND the Supreme court,instead of just allowing pure majority rule, which would have been far more advantageous to States rights factions in the early days?

This is a serious question? "Majority Rule" would have given, say, New York the ability to dictate policy in, say, South Carolina. In what world would that have been "far more advantageous to States rights factions"?

(This is the trouble with an Axelrod campaign. The talking points go out, but the parrots' brains end up taking them to disadvantageous places.)

That's a Chinese red thread:“An invisible red thread connects those destined to meet regardless of time, place or circumstance. The thread may stretch or tangle but never break.” -Ancient Chinese Belief

Reactions to speeches are so subjective. I did not have any problem with the connected line. It seems that we have been connected, or largely connected, on some important things (perhaps not the same things, or not as many, as Obama thinks).

The strawmen drive me crazy. It really is deception and he repeatedly and effortlessly relies upon them. It is a real character flaw, little better than an outright lie.

Seriously, King Obama and Michelle told everyone that he plans to tear down the USA and rebuild it as a community of subjects made into serfs living in a pre-industrial, returned to nature Continent.

At his very core, Obama sees the lower North American area as stolen property taken away by force from administration under a British/Roman Army by the insufferable Scots-Irish Rebel Army lead by George Washington.

He wants to restore us to our place under the world's governing powers.

And incidentally Obama also wants to exterminate upstart Israel.

All of this will require a collapse of the American Dollar and disbanding the Military.

Mikey--yeah, and back in the day, the rabble were...state rights types, pro-slavery libertarians, even though nominally Democrats (in the south). That's one reason the Federalists/Republicans wanted controls on the Congress--ie the SC. Who cares--the point is, Obama's words are not so far from traditional Repub.--say..Lincoln.

Hey Shouting Segway---you'd do well to shut your mouth, wicca scum. As Ive told you before. You're no macho man--you're a dried up old scooter scumbag. You'd be gone in a manner of seconds. Got that yet, trash?

I am glad that J embraces with both arms the sentiments of Federalist 10!

The diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate, is not less an insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests. The protection of these faculties is the first object of government. From the protection of different and unequal faculties of acquiring property, the possession of different degrees and kinds of property immediately results; and from the influence of these on the sentiments and views of the respective proprietors, ensues a division of the society into different interests and parties.

sorepaw said..."Simon, You've noticed, I hope, that the Pledge of Allegiance never refers to states. It's just 'one nation ... indivisible.'"

We're back to "And?"

Are you seriously contending that the Pledge of Allegiance is antifederalist?

We are one nation, indivisible, under God. That nation comprises "an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States," as Chief Justice Chase said in language quoted by then-Justice Rehnquist in Fry v. US, and I couldn't put it better myself.

The "welfare state" is really meant to subvert all the social pressures that come with "village" living. Things like caring for your neighbors, building mutually-supportive communities; you know, local solutions to local problems.

Yeah. And when you are helping your neighbor out, you actually know them. When you know who you are helping you can decide that Bob or Sally may just be a lazy sob who needs to get a job and that you aren't giving them a dime vs. someone else who actually is just having a hard time who you feel happy about helping. You take that function away from the community and you have no one qualified to judge who really needs the help.

Mark said..."Why A-tards did Madison & Hamilton create the Electoral College--ie the Senate-- AND the Supreme court,instead of just allowing pure majority rule, which would have been far more advantageous to States rights factions in the early days?"

Could you translate this into English for the benefit of those of us who are sober? The electoral college isn't the Senate (that's what "i.e." means: id est, "that is to say"). And

The comment that struck me was "What kind of country would this be if this chamber had voted down Social Security or Medicare just because it violated some rigid idea about what government could or could not do?"

I find it unsettling that the President seems to think we can be flacid when it comes to the Constitution.

J, Federalist #10 in no way supports your assertation that a pure democracy would have been in the interests of States Rights advocates. You, friend, are pulling stuff out of your ass that you didn't eat, and one has to wonder how it got there.

My guess is you're getting paid by the comment. Whoever is paying you should re-evaluate the cost-benefit analysis of having you on the payroll.

Collective my bleeding backside. I'm a thorough going mongrel American. First ancestors showed up in Virginia in ~1610. Huguenot ancestors came in 1695 because they couldn't get along in France. Other ancestors fought against the British in 1777-82. Others were in California with Fremont in the 1840s. Up the Chisholm Trail with the early herds. Ancestors fought on both sides in the Civil War.

The common characteristics of all them were a restless spirit, an itch to move and not a heck of a lot of regard for the opinion of others.

I've got a lot of that, and I'm sure as heck not a member of The Bamster's "collective".

I never claimed Madison was liberal. But he wasn't a states rights types, at least in the Fed papers--the Constitutional rights (including those to property ) were not a matter of a vote. That's the point.

"I never claimed Madison was liberal."You don't even know what the term 'liberal' meant in Madison's time.You are a stupid fuck. Maybe you should play Doom2 instead of commenting? I hope that I am being helpful!

More from Fed #10:The influence of factious leaders may kindle a flame within their particular States, but will be unable to spread a general conflagration through the other States. A religious sect may degenerate into a political faction in a part of the Confederacy; but the variety of sects dispersed over the entire face of it must secure the national councils against any danger from that source. A rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other improper or wicked project, will be less apt to pervade the whole body of the Union than a particular member of it; in the same proportion as such a malady is more likely to taint a particular county or district, than an entire State.Yep, no states rights there!

What do you folks think woulld happen if the TPers in Congress (e.g. Bachman) got their way on the debt ceiling vote? The gov borrows 41 cents for every dollar it spends. What exactly happens when, overnight, the federal government contracts by 41%, And, beyond the direct impact of nearly half of the government no longer working, what happens to financial markets? How does this create a feedback loop that worsens the financial status of the US gov and US citizens? Do the impacts stop at 41% of the gov?

TPers like Bachman are idiots. Dangerous idiots, If they were given the opportunity to govern by their so-called principles (e.g. an overnight 41% cut in the federal gov) we'd be finished w/in a month. Good for the POTUS for calling them out.

The text of my Greek Mythology class (written by my Greek Mythology prof) said that the eagle symbolized Zeus and that this was a common symbol for a ruler, one example of which is how the eagle symbolizes the US government.

And further, I'm sure that Althosue, who has repeatedly suggested it's a bad idea for Romney to be to harshly criticized by other GOPers, thinks that a Bachman style instantaneous cut of 41% is insane, and Althouse probably thinks/hopes that someone like Romney would never go along w/ such.

But, at the same time Althouse gets riled up and works to deflect focusing on the insanity of the Bachman TPers if BHO fires warning bells (or whatever it was Palin said) about the extreme views of some of these TPers in Congress, who are already able to influence policy. And, w/ the cover provided by Althouse-type thinking, we are supposed to sit back and pretend that the real concern is that BHO is about to usher in some sort of Communist Collective, when he said absolutely nothing of the sort.

In other words, we are to ignore the nuts who are pushing insane policies in Congress, and instead we are advised to focus on BS lies about what BHO said.

But as the plan of the convention aims only at a partial union or consolidation, the State governments would clearly retain all the rights of sovereignty which they before had, and which were not, by that act, EXCLUSIVELY delegated to the United States.

What exactly happens when, overnight, the federal government contracts by 41%,

Suddenly, 41% of the 25% of GDP that the government is consuming is pushed back into the private market.

Let's see, an immediate increase of over 10% of the total value of GDP available immediately to private citizens, companies, and investors.

Talk about an overnight economic boom.

That's what Barack Obama and his supporters like you don't get, pbAndJ. You don't understand where government money comes from because you don't pay taxes. You never see the consequences of overspending. You are like children whose parents pay all their bills, whining and screaming about how selfish and mean Mommy and Daddy are because they won't buy you the new toy you want.

"What do you folks think woulld happen if the TPers in Congress (e.g. Bachman) got their way on the debt ceiling vote? The gov borrows 41 cents for every dollar it spends. What exactly happens when, overnight, the federal government contracts by 41%"

Yap. That would be like complete and utter chaos and blood on the streets. If we cut federal budget by the amount of 2011 deficit, our spending would be same as it was in 2003, just 8 year ago. Imagine the horror!

"Terry" it's obviously a bit too complex for you --Mad. the Federalist (haven't quite got around to googling that have you) is arging about dangers of faction..and the need for a strong central govt. Not states rights. Maybe stick to like finishing yr LVN joto.

TPers like Bachman are idiots. Dangerous idiots, If they were given the opportunity to govern by their so-called principles (e.g. an overnight 41% cut in the federal gov) we'd be finished w/in a month.

Actually, you're an idiot (and economic illiterate) and due to policies you support we're already "finished"

"Terry" it's obviously a bit too complex for you --Mad. the Federalist (haven't quite got around to googling that have you) is arging about dangers of faction..and the need for a strong central govt. Not states rights. Maybe stick to like finishing yr LVN joto.

------------

Actually the passage he quoted says the exact opposite, too bad you can't understand a fucking thing you read:

but the variety of sects dispersed over the entire face of it must secure the national councils against any danger from that source. A rage for paper money, "for an abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other improper or wicked project, will be less apt to pervade the whole body of the Union than a particular member of it; in the same proportion as such a malady is more likely to taint a particular county or district, than an entire State."

That is actually an argument in favor of factionalism as a natural check against centralization of power.

Obama is certainly not "one of us". He was born British, of a Communist British subject father. He was raised and influenced ny foreign Muslims and avowed Communists. He freely associated w/ American terrorists, and other assorted rats den of America hating Jihadists and Communists. Yet the brilliant "law prof" voted for him, even though he is not a natural born Citizen, and not eligible.

North Dallas Thirty said..."[pbAndjFellowRepublican asked 'What exactly happens when, overnight, the federal government contracts by 41%'] Suddenly, 41% of the 25% of GDP that the government is consuming is pushed back into the private market. Let's see, an immediate increase of over 10% of the total value of GDP available immediately to private citizens, companies, and investors. Talk about an overnight economic boom. ¶ That's what Barack Obama and his supporters like you don't get, pbAndJ. You don't understand where government money comes from because you don't pay taxes. You never see the consequences of overspending. You are like children whose parents pay all their bills, whining and screaming about how selfish and mean Mommy and Daddy are because they won't buy you the new toy you want."

the reason for the Electoral College was because the president is elected by *states* not by citizens.

There is no provision in the US Constitution for any citizen to vote for anything. The first election in which all the Electoral College were elected by state residents rather than chosen by legislature or other means was 1844 (1848?)

There is an indirect requirement that states hold elections for Representatives, later extended to Senators in the 16th Amendment.

But even that is indirect. It is only required if state legislatures are elected and there is no US Constitutional requirement for that.

We are the United *STATES* of America. Not the United Counties, Provinces, Regions or other division.

Review the meaning of the word "state". It meant then, and still means today, a sovereign nation or country.

It is one of the things that makes the USA unique. It is one of the things that makes it work so well.

The first section discussing slavery is interesting but pretty creepy. The second section is about the right to secession and discusses the political history of the USA, the Constitution and the preceding Articles of Confederation.

I had always thought that the Constitution was a do-over, starting fresh.

Davis says that the original articles were never nullified. Rather, the Constitution superseded them.

He specifically discusses the "more perfect union" phrase in some depth. What he says is that we already had a "union" (Confederation)that all the independent states (remember the definition of "state") had agreed to.

That union had some problems. The Constitutional Convention was to fix those problems and make the union "more perfect"

Not just pretty language, in other words. It was in there and that way for a specific reason. At least according to Davis who seems fairly convincing on this.

See BHO's concerns about folks who want to dismantle the gov are justified.

Not only are there the TPers like Bachman who are already influencing legislation in Congress, but Althouse has collect some of these ideologues in her own threads.

They think that the net effect of an overnight cut of 41% of the federal government would be that everything in our country continues as usual, except that the Chinese et. al. (the gov's creditors) would redirect all of their near-0% lending to American businesses instead of the government, and then these businesses would happily absorb this flood of debt, thereby........[at this point this scenario is so mind numbingly stupid that I can't bring myself to restate the financial nirvana that these fools beleive would result from the us gov implementing an overnight cut of 41%].

The connectedness thing may rub the wrong way, but it's pretty immaterial to the speech. The real rub for me is Obama's constant cries for rising above partisan politics. Translation: my policy is so shitty that I can't even get my own party to support it, so show a brother some love. I'm throwing every piece of spaghetti I have at the wall and NOTHING IS STICKING!

Postpartisanship was the farthest thing from his mind during the health care debate. It's clear from his speeches that Obama doesn't even like bipartisanship, as his wildly socialist ideas get pulverized during the legislative process. I like the ugly, bruising battles of Congress and think it's a necessary check on presidential fiat. Obama thinks they are a nuisance. He doesn't get America and he never will.

It pains me to say this, but America's Politico's 15 minutes are over. When you have such a simple schtick going, you have to use it sparingly. And you have to stick to the schtick! Sorry AP; you don't make me laugh anymore.